Posted
by
CmdrTacoon Monday November 01, 2010 @08:44AM
from the well-there-aren't-that-many-choices dept.

srimadman found an interview with Wave creator Lars Rasmussen where he talks about his recent decision to join Facebook, leaving Google behind. Apparently getting personally pitched by Zuckerberg helped. He says, "I've got a job description of 'come hang out with us for a while and we'll see what happens,' which is a pretty exciting thing." The article talks about Big vs Small companies, and notes that about 20% of Facebook's staff are former Googlers.

Are you kidding? User privacy (or the lack thereof) is their main revenue stream!

I stopped putting anything of consequence on Facebook (including pictures) over a year ago. After seeing how much Facebook changed since I joined when Facebook was still a closed edu community (a LOT better back then too) and the endless crazy privacy settings I stopped using it. Privacy is now simple, there is absolutely nothing on facebook that I care about anymore. For example, if someone tags me in a photo, I immediately un-tag the photo.

By now, if you keep posting things about yourself on Facebook that you're concerned about it's you're own fault. Privacy is easy now for me on Facebook.

I just use a pseudonym, based on a famous person with a similar name. People can tag me all they want. I also lock down the profile so that no applications can access my data, and I don't keep any personal data on there. I lastly have different privileges for different groups of people, some don't get access to any tagged photos, photos I upload, or wall posts. No one gets to see which friends I have, that they don't also have.

There's still cross site cookies, and no setting in facebook or outside of will fix the fact that you're tracked via facebook off of facebook. So while you've done "what you can", it doesn't do quite as much as you'd hope it does.

I welcome a facebook replacement as long as it's something that doesn't make as much a mock of privacy as facebook.

Overall it reduces your exposure, and besides instances like that, it makes it so someone just researching you, will have trouble finding more information. Someone who is using sophisticated methods like you're mentioning, is either going to be a business working with them, and less nefarious than you'd think, or someone who really desperately wants your information. The latter, has many different options, Facebook being the easiest. Though, since you're not keeping any usable information in it, it's not a

A problem my wife (elem school teacher) ran into and she doesn't even have a facebook account, is people posting pics of her or that include her to their facebook pages. She nor I have any idea it is even out there since it isn't tagged and then all of a sudden someone will mention a picture they saw of her on fb. We then have to track down the person and ask them to remove the pic. Her school is crazy about any photos of the teachers online and a few have been fired for something as simple as a photo of th

Eventually trickle-up lack of privacy will catch up with these companies and they will suffer. And those who hang with Facebook (and Google) will have severe hangover. It's Moby Dick all over again, with Eric Schmidt (the "creep") - the new captain Ahab.

Privacy is not, and has never been, a killer app. We still don't regularly encrypt email; we send it plaintext and leave it on google servers. NSA's pressure on Zimmerman didn't kill PGP email, apathy did.

I'm not so sure they don't, but they're just not willing to give up convenience for it. If you asked users if they could magically have privacy without any cost, I'm sure most would opt for it. The problem with encrypted email is that it's not an easy default.

I have a friend who's a software engineer and was gleefully using Google's location feature that sends pings everywhere you go. Now, this is someone who *should* know better. Everyone else is much worse. From celebrities and athletes tweeting information they shouldn't to Google's Total Information Awareness, I think this is the new norm.

Wave was interesting (to me, at least) because it offered collaboration and sharing in real-time, in a way that would've been much more powerful than what I've seen in current collaboration tools (e.g., SharePoint) -- if it had worked well as advertised. The problem I always saw with Wave was that the damn thing was slow. I mean, dear God was it slow, sometimes! If you can type faster than the text can be rendered in an application (by seve

Wave is (since it's still operable until the end of the year) a real-time collaboration tool. It has elements of wikis, e-mail, and even chat capabilities that hearkened back to Unix talk. It's got about as much in common with Facebook as Gmail does.

Buzz is probably a closer fit to Facebook than it is to Twitter. Twitter is kind of limited (e.g., to 140 characters), and Buzz is a good deal richer.

It seems like everyone calls everything Google has done recently their "version of Facebook."

This has become a tech media plague, really. Just because Facebook is wildly popular doesn't mean that any site that aspires to have more than 2 members that can talk to each other is a "version of Facebook".

Someone would create a wave of the meeting agenda and invite the people who were going to attend.

As the meeting went along, everyone could edit the wave in realtime collobaterion. The agenda evolved into the meeting notes.

And if you missed the meeting, you can re-play the wave and see the steps of every comment and note as it went along.

The failure of wave as I see it isn't that it couldn't provide killer new features, or a failure to boost productivity.

The problem was that if I want to email or IM someone, I can do so through Gmail and every contact I need is there. With Wave, only so many people had it, so I couldn't colloberate with the people I needed to.

To be fair, they ARE brilliant, but even brilliance doesn't always result in "wow, awesome!" A case in point, Wayne Cherry designed both the 1970 Vauxhall SRV [blogspot.com] and the Pontiac Aztec. [insideline.com]

It's true that Wave made almost no ripples (sorry, bad pun), but I very much doubt "hacks" defines the vast majority of Google's workforce.

So apparently, every idea that anyone ever comes up with should be absolutely unique and have no predecessors in your view?

To take just one thing, I don't know if you remember web search before Google - there's a reason that "to Google" is a verb these days... Of course they've taken existing ideas and improved on them - that really is the basis of innovation. You can keep going back further and further to prove that nothing in that little list of yours is really "new" (Android -> Apple -> Palm ->

To take just one thing, I don't know if you remember web search before Google - there's a reason that "to Google" is a verb these days... Of course they've taken existing ideas and improved on them - that really is the basis of innovation. You can keep going back further and further to prove that nothing in that little list of yours is really "new" (Android -> Apple -> Palm -> Newton ->... -> PADD from Star Trek ->... -> A pocket notebook ->... -> a bunch of palm leaves or pap

The business definition for "innovation" is not "producing innovative things" but "making somehow innovative things to produce tons of cash". Yes, I know that's not what you mean by "innovation", but that's what business mean and related to business that's all that counts.

Google has helped people slack at work and school by providing an extremely rich web search engine, but beyond that, their products haven't been the impetus for any paradigm shift.

You've got to be kidding me. Google totally owned search. It used to be you'd have to sift through pages and pages of AltaVista for anything specific, or look at Yahoo for big items. They turned that into usually a one-page search for everything, with a simple, clean interface (back in the time when everybody was putting up loads of crap and flashing advertisements on their home pages, trying to be a "portal"). That's why they dominated the existing leaders of the day.

From the demo I saw (I never actually tried it), it looked to me like an online collaboration tool for groups. You could chat with the whole group, launch shared screens for collaboration etc etc. You could add and remove users from the wave as you go. It tried to blend all kinds of things into one platform hosted on a central server. Google were never really able to convince people why they need this tool (myself included). I remember after looking at the demo, thinking how painful it might have been to actually use in the real world.

google should have marketed it as an IM which had additional features, or as a facebook replacement with same. Instead they tried to advertise all it could do and confused people. I was only confused as to why I should use it when no one else would, and I was right.

google should have marketed it as an IM which had additional features, or as a facebook replacement with same. Instead they tried to advertise all it could do and confused people.

But it was really neither of those things. It was nothing like Facebook. IM was a secondary feature.

It was a BBS with Etherpad-like collaborative editing; which could segue into an IM-like realtime experience if two users happened to be on the same Wave at the same time.... and it had a plugin architecture that so that you could communicate using more than just text. (sketches, maps, polls etc.)

I remember after looking at the demo, thinking how painful it might have been to actually use in the real world.

The difficult bit was "Hey we'll use Wave... Oh you're not on Wave? I'll have to send you an invite, and then we can wait a few days, and maybe you'll get an invite, and then you'll get a signup link from Google, and then we can start using it..." multiplied by as many people you wanted to collaborate with.

Once you were on, it was easy and pretty self-explanatory.

It was a threaded BBS, much like the Slashdot comments system; and you could use it exactly that way.... except that if someone else was typing a

A few friends of mine have been using Wave for developing a game and game toolset, and its a weird mixture of wiki, message board, and group whiteboard, they usually discuss the latest project milestone on Skype while having running meeting minutes in a Wave. If someone can't make the meeting, they come along later and comment. There's long waves about everything from programming standards, to models and art assets, to release notes.

It's been so damn useful for project development that Google is planning to ship "Wave in a Box" so small teams like ours can deploy it on our own server, even after Google kills official support. And we will, we can't go back to wiki, it seems so damn archaic at this point.

Gosh, I remember having to explain what "email" was to people. Their reaction: "Why would I send some kind of computer message? If I'm in a rush, I'll phone. If I'm not, I'll send a letter. If I'm in a rush and they need a record, I'll fax." Hell, when radio was introduced people thought of it as wireless telegraphy. You could locate a telegraph office anywhere without running wires. Speaking of telegraph offices, many people imagined that we'd be going to the telegraph office to pick up written messages

Sure, I can try anyway -- it's a communication tool that attempts to combine the best of IRC, instant messaging, e-mail and web forums into one streamlined interface.

Personally I think it failed because it was overly ambitious and was overly compromised. It was too clunky for real time communication and didn't offer enough new features for it to supplant e-mail. It was a _very_ interesting exercise and something that needs to happen. I don't know about you, but I spend all day logged into IRC (and IM

Was was an implementation of the protocol-one, operational transformation (OT) and protobuf projects developed as an extension of XMPP
The demo app was fairly dire however the protocol is excellent for collaborative editing of data. We use it for M2M stuff with autonomous agents
and it is great.

But never mind, imagine Etherpad -- you are typing into a text area; so is someone else on another browser; you can see each other's edits. The document is persistent. If nobody else is there, you can still work on it. If others are working on it, you needn't stop.

Now imagine that as well as that, you can "reply" to a text window by creating a new one below it. Just like this Slashdot reply. That reply is also group-editable.

"I think if you were to ask me two or three years ago if Facebook was going to be this big, I wouldn't have picked it. And I have a great deal to learn there from Mark and his team," he said.
And a great deal of cash to earn, hey Mark is a 24-year old billionaire and they need me.
WAVEs goodbye...

Wow, you found out that a top Google programmer is being hired by another company for money. Oh, and he agreed to switch companies because he is being paid big bucks. Yep, you sure deserve the Insightful mod.

Most people here dream about doing a good enough job to be hired by one of the top companies and being paid big bucks for it, but when we see someone with a proven track record getting paid for it: Sellout!

If he invented some incredible green energy break through, I'd be thinking way to go!If he found a way to eliminate much of the poverty and sickness in the Third World, I'd say way to go kid! You deserve every penny!If he came up with some sort of medical breakthrough that eliminate breast and ovarian or prostate cancer, I'd be really happy for him.

No, he didn't.

He became an instant billionaire by selling what is basically personal web pages that broadcast updates automatically.

That website helped me connect and stay in touch with people that I normally would not contact as I'm not a 'phone' person and they are not 'letter' people.

It's been of use to me. If you can create something which becomes useful to millions of people, you don't see THAT as being worth some money?

Granted, I think people are insane in setting the potential value so high, but it's certainly worth several million. (In general, I think that advertising expendatures have become a self fulfilling prophecy. Jus

And if in addition to the great opportunity he gets money for it, what's the problem?He is a good programmer and Facebook thinks he is worth the amount they pay him. He, OTOH, gets a good salary (I presume it is more than what he got at Google) and an interesting job - seems like a Win-Win situation.Correct me if I am wrong, but it is not such a rare occasion that programmers move from one company to another in the IT business.

Not money yet.Google already gone public Lars probably got a bunch of stock options from Google but those are going to get harder to come by now.Facebook has yet to go public. Lars is getting a bunch of stock options and when Facebook goes public $$$$$.I wonder if anybody has gone from Yahoo to Google to Facebook. If so they are probably well past set for life at this point in time.

Except if it is proven that Paul Ceglia owns 84% of Facebook. Zuckerberg is handing out stock after a judge said he couldn't distribute or sell company assets. What if a judge rules the stock Zuckerberg gave you, he didn't have a right to hand out?

A colleague of mine used to work at Google and told me there is considerable pressure put on you to come up with something concrete and constructive from that 10%. It's not a free time to just dick about with whatever takes your fancy, it has to be for the betterment of Google.

I'm surprised Google killed Wave when they haven't killed many other long-standing projects they have going that are much less popular with users and, as a result, much less lucrative. I think it was a clash of heads between Rasmussen and the top over what his priorities should be. They probably wanted something that would be as instantly popular as Maps. Wave did have potential especially if they marketed it alongside Google Apps for Business, but it's definitely not going to drive the kind people who u

Wave did have potential especially if they marketed it alongside Google Apps for Business, but it's definitely not going to drive the kind people who use Facebook to start switching in droves to using Wave instead -- that's a bit unrealistic. If that's what Lars was looking for, everyone's probably better off with him at Facebook.

The value of loyalty is completely gone in today's organizations. No loyalty to the company; No loyalty to the employees, and no loyalty between employees. I'm not advocating blind loyalty, but when people change companies every couple of years for a slight bump in salary, or a shinier title, or just so they don't appear "stagnant", it's a problem. And it's a problem first and foremost for the employees themselves.

What do you expect when businesses stopped being loyal to their employees? There used to be things like pension plans and long term job security. Now companies might match some portion of your 401k and at a slight downturn in the economy they might lay off hundreds or thousands so that their numbers look a little bit better. If they're willing to toss workers overboard for slight profit, workers are well within reason to toss their company overboard for their own slight profit. Give people a good reason to stay and you'll get loyal employees, otherwise you get what coming to you.

It should have never been there in the first place. Employment is a business transaction for both the employee and the employer. Employees have long fantasized that it wasn't, but are now waking up. Why shouldn't both parties attempt to maximize their returns? For the business this usually means getting what they are paying for. For the employee it might mean better pay or benefits, or it could be for more intangible returns such as achieving personal goals, helping others, working on interesting things, that shiny new title, etc.

Employment is more than just business in the real world. It's a social activity and organizations are social structures rather than ideal friction reducing "infrastructure" that some academics think they are.

Wrong on both counts. It's been more than 30 years since I was under 25.

Employment is more than just business in the real world. It's a social activity and organizations are social structures rather than ideal friction reducing "infrastructure" that some academics think they are.

It may be a social activity for the employee but it's most certainly not for the employer. Businesses are all about business transactions either by design or due to legal obligations imposed by government.

In any case, we are discussing loyalty between employer and employee. A business is not a person and employment is not a marriage. Expecting to stay with an employer out of loyalty is absurd. Ultimately, the relationship between employee and employer is one of cost and benefit. Are both parties deriving benefit? If so, there's no reason to change anything. But needs and desires change. The business may change direction which could lead to redundancy in employees. The desires or needs of the employee may change which might facilitate them leaving for another business.

Speaking for myself, I have been thinking of making a career change within the next five years. I am creeping up on retirement age anyway, but have a desire to work with a non-profit for which I have been volunteering over the last several years. It would mean less pay but far more job satisfaction. At my age, with a paid off house, plenty of retirement savings and a vested pension, I am willing to make that sort of change because the benefit of accomplishment and happiness outweighs my financial desires. I can assure you that the situation was reversed when I began my career 30 years ago.

Should I stay with my company out of some misguided sense of loyalty? Am I arrogant enough to think that this company can't continue to function without me? Of course not. I am replaceable and I know that. I have a lot of company knowledge in my head but others can cover for me and a replacement can be trained. I will do what is best for me and, if I leave, make the transition happen in a responsible manner for all concerned.

I suspect that Lars is in much the same situation. He created something interesting and sold it to Google. I imagine that he's quite financially secure. Now he has other priorities and wants to pursue those things that interest him and this opportunity is what he decided to pursue. Should he be loyal to Google? If so, for what reason? The company will survive without him. There are plenty of smart people at Google with many more clamoring to get in. Meanwhile, Lars only has one life and I can't fault him for wanting to live it.

Maybe this is one of those things that can only be understood with age. As you become more financially secure and the kids grow older and leave home, your priorities change. You'll experience it some day, I'm sure.

So "about 20%" of Facebook is made up of people who went from "Do no evil" to "Sucks to be you." I guess it's better they aren't at Google anymore, but now I have to wonder how many other people still work at Google that just don't give a fuck.

His brother (the other guy who made google maps) will stay with google. So it seems that relations between the two internet companies, at least at the top, are not as hostile as they often are portrayed.

What, you think being a prostitute is popular because these women like to have sex?

Oo-hoo, what a tangent!

1. Is being a prostitute "popular"?2. I'm sure there are lots women working as prostitutes, who don't enjoy it but can find no alternative.3.... but they wouldn't be the only people in the world who don't enjoy their job4. Yet equally, some people enjoy their jobs, and they tend to be the ones who are best at it5. So I bet there's women working as prostitutes who have alternatives, but enjoy the sex (as well as the money) and are good at it